NASA Shuttle-derived Sidemount Heavy Launch Vehicle Concept

Ronsmytheiii Says:

Sep 8, 2009 - yes, because you want a company that has only sent one true satellite in orbit controlling the entire United state's manned spaceflight program.

Ronsmytheiii Says:

Sep 8, 2009 - Ares I only duplicates a class of vehicle already fulfilled in Atlas V and Delta IV, while costing $15 billion so it is not cheaper by a stretch

rocketshipstud2 Says:

Sep 10, 2009 - we better annex our 6-flagged american moon as the 51st state luna! end1967 space treaty!

rocketshipstud2 Says:

Sep 10, 2009 - the red chinese and india may claim and annex the moon and russian may beat us to mars and claim entire planet for themselves!

sixpackgenius Says:

Sep 16, 2009 - MattBlak1 is correct about the disposable SSME. I too wondered about losing 3 SSMEs per launch. This design will be using SSMEs at the end of their design life. SSMEs are good for only 12 launches. NASA has about 70 SSMEs for the shuttle fleet.

EndeavourLaunch Says:

Sep 16, 2009 - A manrated EELV seems the best way to go IMO. LEO rendezvous and docking, eject to the moon, don't have to worry about the booster being developed. Yet we're still going to have ATLEAST a 5 year gap for Orion development and manrating a Delta IV/ Atlas V.

thirdclass2006 Says:

Sep 18, 2009 - Ares is turning out NOT to be fine. Cost is one thing, time is another. Ares 1 is looking more like being available around 2017 rather than 2015. Also, Ares 1 has that vibration issue that needs more hardware to solve, which also reduces payload.

thirdclass2006 Says:

Sep 18, 2009 - Far as I know, it's seen a the cheaper alternative to Constellation. It could allow for a quicker return to flight. It also cuts out the need to make two rockets to go to the moon.

thirdclass2006 Says:

Sep 18, 2009 - Ever hear of Shuttle-C? That's the start of the idea.

thirdclass2006 Says:

Sep 18, 2009 - That's the problem; people are too gorged on sci-fi that they make unrealistic expectations. Touch screens are to used, FYI. Don't expect star travel with our current tech. The solar system is the first goal that needs to be met. If it's the stars you want, convince people to stop being afraid of nuclear technology.

thirdclass2006 Says:

Sep 18, 2009 - The shuttle's problem is that it's heat shield is subject to damage, because it's exposed all the time. The Apollo design is used because it WORKED great. Apollo was the way to go. It's a shame it ended because of politicians. Because of that, we have to start over again. Hopefully, some politician won't cause us to be stuck in LEO again.

thirdclass2006 Says:

Sep 18, 2009 - Actually, it's limited to two for lunar missions, not LEO. The limit is because weight is taken up by the Earth departure stage, AFAIK.

thirdclass2006 Says:

Sep 18, 2009 - Heck yeah! Same engines, just a different location for the spacecraft. I have to ask, what the hell, NASA? Stop being afraid of Direct!

thirdclass2006 Says:

Sep 18, 2009 - Not really a waste when you think about it. Ares 1 has weight issues. Orion has be reduced in size, plus various weight savings had to be made. For a $15 billion developement cost, it's also hardly cost effective to have a rocket that needs extra hardware to cancel out vibration issues as well, when you can have a cheaper rocket that doesn't have such issues.

thirdclass2006 Says:

Sep 18, 2009 - Whoa, there's 70 spare SSMEs available? I though there were only a dozen or so. What's the source for this info? I hope it's true, as it would give a good lead time to make cheaper RS-25s.

sixpackgenius Says:

Sep 18, 2009 - I checked the serial numbers and checked a book by Jenkins' "Space shuttle". There were around 51 engines built all together, Block I, II and IIA (I stand corrected). We lost six with the losses of Challenger and Columbia. The shuttles use 10 Block IIA SSMEs that were originally built. 5 more IIA's were built after Columbia. Some parts from the block I and II engines were used for the block IIA engines.

TremorHellborn Says:

Sep 18, 2009 - WOW! COOL!

rendycs1995 Says:

Oct 10, 2009 - Nice Structure!!! ^^

jxvwp Says:

Nov 1, 2009 - The thing is that it's more expensive to convert a EELV like the ATLAS V or DELTA IV to a CLV (Crew Lift Vehicle) than it is to start from scratch with the Ares I.

EndeavourLaunch Says:

Nov 1, 2009 - All you have to do to an EELV is man-rate it to put Orion on it. But imo from my uneducated mind I don't think an EELV could really do the job to put an EDS/LM into orbit. Thats why DIRECT or SDLV-HLV is a viable and feasible option. Ares I has a problem with TO, could kill the crew. Wondering if I-X got any data off it, although I doubt it.

jxvwp Says:

Nov 2, 2009 - You forget about the cost per launch and cost per kilograms og cargo. Both areas where Ares-1 runs supreme and will earn it's own development cost in tenfold in about 10 lauches

thirdclass2006 Says:

Nov 2, 2009 - I believe one mystery is how the second stage tumbled after seperation. I thought that was just because it was a dummy stage, but I'm not so sure.

thirdclass2006 Says:

Nov 2, 2009 - So it would cost more than the $14 billion it will take to develope Ares 1 to man rate Delta IV or Atlas V? I don't get it. How does that work? With Ares 1, you have to make an engine and liquid stage from scratch, as well as remake the existing booster. With an EELV, you use what's already made.

jxvwp Says:

Nov 3, 2009 - It's the conversion and man-rating of the EELV's that will take a lot of the cost. Then there is the cost per launch where as I said before the Ares-I will beat the converted EELV's. And also I'd say it would be safer to purely develop a manned rocket than man-rate an EELV.

jxvwp Says:

Nov 3, 2009 - It was as you said because it was a dummy stage. Normally a second or third stage would have some small rockets arranged in a ring around the interstage that would keep the speed up and clear the next stage of the previous.